Excerpt:penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 411 - receiving stolen property--essentials of offense. - - the magistrate would have been well advised to have examined sadagopa naidu, but i cannot say that he was bound to do so. on two material points, the prosecution evidence is unconvincing. the store keepers, prosecution 2nd witness and prosecution 3rd witness, say distinctly that nothing has been stolen from their stores. there is no well understood rule on the subject of these bottles. 2. on one other point the evidence is unconvincing......place, there is no satisfactory evidence that the bottles before the court were stolen from the government stores. the store keepers, prosecution 2nd witness and prosecution 3rd witness, say distinctly that nothing has been stolen from their stores. the suggestion of the learned crown prosecutor is that the bottles must have belonged to some other government store and must have been stolen from it. it does not follow that because the store mark is put upon the bottles, the stuff was stolen from some government store. the evidence given by the 2nd prosecution witness shows that empty bottles are sold. further, there is the evidence of mr. smith, the court witness, who says the bottles before the court are common bottles. we get them occasionally. there is no well understood rule on the.....

Judgment:

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. I do not think that the order of discharge is wrong. The Magistrate would have been well advised to have examined Sadagopa Naidu, but I cannot say that he was bound to do so. On two material points, the prosecution evidence is unconvincing. In the first place, there is no satisfactory evidence that the bottles before the Court were stolen from the Government Stores. The store keepers, prosecution 2nd witness and prosecution 3rd witness, say distinctly that nothing has been stolen from their Stores. The suggestion of the learned Crown Prosecutor is that the bottles must have belonged to some other Government store and must have been stolen from it. It does not follow that because the store mark is put upon the bottles, the stuff was stolen from some Government store. The evidence given by the 2nd prosecution witness shows that empty bottles are sold. Further, there is the evidence of Mr. Smith, the Court witness, who says the bottles before the Court are common bottles. We get them occasionally. There is no well understood rule on the subject of these bottles. They are left to the manufacturers to sell them.' In these circumstances, I cannot say that it is established beyond doubt that these bottles came from any of the Government stores and that the chloroform in them belonged to the Government.

2. On one other point the evidence is unconvincing. As argued by Mr. Richmond, it has to be established that the accused who received these goods believed them to be stolen property. As pointed out by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court in Empress v. Mango Timaji 6 B.P 402 it is not enough that the receiver suspects the goods to be stolen property. In this case, there is hardly any evidence to show that the accused believed that these goods were stolen and that in that state of mind received the goods. In these circumstances, I cannot say that the Magistrate was wrong in discharging the accused. The petition is dismissed.